Soda tax supporters accuse opponents of breaking campaign finance law

Advertisements decrying the proposal to tax soda in San Francisco are everywhere — from billboards to web banner ads to literature being handed out around town by people wearing those ubiquitous red T-shirts. But the campaign to defeat Proposition E on the Nov. 4 ballot hasn’t reported receiving any money so far — so how are they paying for it?

The campaign to pass Prop. E, which would levy a two-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks and use it to fund children’s anti-obesity programs, thinks something is amiss. It has filed complaints with the San Francisco Ethics Commission and the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging that the No on E committee and its principal source of funds, the American Beverage Association, are violating financial disclosure requirements.

Roger Salazar, spokesman for the No on E committee, said that’s untrue. “We are fully in compliance with all of the election rules and laws, and we’ll continue to be so throughout the course of this campaign,” he said.

So is all thodr billboards, web banner ads and campaign worker time coming for free? Uh, no.

Under the complicated rules of financial disclosure, campaign committees working to pass or defeat measures on the November ballot must have reported any contributions they received in the first half of the year by June 30. Then, on August 6 — the beginning of the final 90 days of the campaign — committees must start reporting any contributions of $1,000 or more within 24 hours. But that means any contributions between July 1 and August 5 don’t have to be legally disclosed until October 6. (We told you this was confusing.)

So the American Beverage Association could have poured any amount of money into the No on E committee during that window and keep it hidden until less than a month before the election. Salazar confirmed the soda industry did donate money during that time, but would give no indication as to how much — and said it won’t be disclosed until Oct. 6.

Maggie Muir, campaign manager for the Yes on E committee, said that may be perfectly legal, but it’s still shady.

“They’re pulling the wool over voters’ eyes – they’re trying to hide the money that they’re spending,” she said. “That’s in direct violation of the intent of the law which is to make sure there’s transparency for voters.”

The Yes on E side has reported receiving just over $90,000 so far. Among their donors are some famous names: Assemblyman Tom Ammiano ($250); Bi-Rite Market ($1,000); philanthropists Mark and Susie Buell ($1,000 apiece); prominent developer Oz Erickson ($2,000); Elisa Stephens, president of the Academy of Art University ($5,000); the California Nurses Association ($15,000) and several individual doctors and medical associations.